My baby is three months old and I've been using a baby monitor since day 1. And here I thought it was just Time Warner's usually crappy service...on second thought, it is just Time Warner's usual crappy service.
487 for Chemists, 486 for Secondary Education. I'm not sure that qualifies as significant. I'll say it again, the field of education is far broader than most people give it credit for. Please don't equate my MAEd in Curriculum to a 4 year + elementary school teacher education program. Not to disparage 3rd grade teachers everywhere, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to ace the SAT or GRE to be a good manager of 9 year olds' daily routines.
Additionally, the research done in education is notorious for its lack of rigor, especially it's reluctance to use control groups.
That's just your methodological or paradigmatic bias. Education is better suited towards qualitative research methods. Control groups are not a staple of qualitative research, and dismissing research because it doesn't use placebos and petrie dishes is shallow. I would say education research that depends heavily on quantitative methods would be just as silly as chemistry research that used critical ethnography. No one research method is the best--a few are better suited for the topic, however.
Did you miss the part where I said, "or equivalent"? That is the huge catch-all that HR throws in there so they can cherry pick a lesser qualified candidate over more qualified ones. It's also the way family members and golfing buddies get jobs that they aren't qualified for.
People like me? No, people like HR. I don't get it either, but that doesn't make it any less true. If a company doesn't deems 4 years of Android experience a must for that position, then why would they go through the trouble of writing it?
Well you got one thing right and one thing very wrong. First, most companies do pay more for a masters over a bachelors, even if both candidates have zero experience. That's the magic of HR metrics. When you get into contracting-land, companies have to have a specific percentage of PhDs, masters, and 4-year college grads to be competitive. If you can't win a contract, there's no point in having a bunch of highly experienced (but uneducated) techs.
You are VERY right about getting a masters while you still can manage. For most people, this is when you are young and dumb. Most of us move beyond living in a one bedroom apartment with five of our friends and driving a 10 year old beater car because that saves money for the case of Natural Light. Get your masters while you are young and poor! As soon as you start working, you'll rarely find time. You'll get married, you'll get a mortgage, you'll buy two cars, you'll have a couple kids. Then one day when you are 35, you'll realize "had I just stayed in school for two more years when I was 23, I could have been DONE with school forever".
I found my masters to be NOTHING like my bachelors. The masters degree plan focused on a problem statement in the first class, followed by 18 months of classes and personal research that focused on the problem statement, culminating with published research. Undergrad was just a bunch of garbage liberal arts classes that were completely unrelated to anything other than being in college.
But if I prove I can "DO", and I add a post-graduate degree to my arsenal, my boss better pay me more or I'll take my skills somewhere else. If I can't renegotiate my salary with a degree, then I'll go to another company offering a higher position that is looking for the higher degree. If this sounds like I might have just gone through this exact scenario, you'd be right. And for the record, I still work for my old company, and I got a raise. Seems the value of a degree is actually a little higher than many of you 9-to-5ers want to admit.
It's not going to get you more money or the ability to skip past others.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! My wife and I both have Masters degrees, and we both started at much higher pay tiers than our contemporaries. The key to "tiers" is that, while we may have the same job titles (software test engineer II, for example), our base salaries are higher than other software test engineer IIs with less education). My wife makes $15k more a year than her coworkers with Bachelors degrees, and I make $25k more than mine, both of us have been with the company less than 2 years.
So after you start at a higher pay because of your higher degree, you are also closer to the front of the line for the next promotion (assuming you aren't a complete loser at work). Most promotions require the next level of education as well (or a hell of a lot of experience), so the person who started at a higher tier AND already has the education requirements will be more likely to get promoted.
The "HR barrier" is pretty simple. If the job requirement says "Masters in Computer Science, or equivalent required", then you should probably have an MS Comp Science. I've been screening candidates lately for a low level media production position, and it's amazing how many people feel entitled to apply for a job they have no qualifications for. "Four years or more" experience means you have to have, four years (or more), otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time typing the requirement.
HR is an alternate reality. Some job posting has "requirements" that are rigid, and some other "requirements" are there just to give them enough wiggle room to pick a lesser-qualified candidate over another (as in, my cousin needs a job, so I'm going to make these requirements impossible to be met by anybody). Still, I work at a software company and when our jobs have a "Masters degree" requirement, all the experience in the world won't even get you an interview. There's a reason HR has these rules. If anyone understands them, I'd like to hear your take.
Lightweight, eh? Care to elaborate, or are you just projecting your (most likely) heavy science background and biases into your post?
I'm seriously tired of the disparaging remarks towards education degrees. Sure, a four-year degree isn't much (in any field, if you ask me), but any work in any post-graduate field is an accomplishment in my book. I don't understand rocket science, but I notice the rocket scientists I work with don't understand the art of instructional design either.
Or, you could be like me and get your Master's from a giant-turd of an online University that spends their profit on naming football stadiums. They make the claim that their classes are better, because they are facilitated (not taught, because they aren't PhDs) by working professionals in the field of education. Every course I took facilitated by a public school teacher was an absolute waste of time, as they don't know how to teach education--they know how to push the buttons of adolescents.
I for one welcome the PhD in education teaching me about education, as opposed to trying to teach me how to teach. There are lots of jobs in education (like mine, software simulation training development) that require a strong understanding of education but don't require a single ounce of teaching skill. Leave teaching teachers how to teach to those 4 year plus 1 BA in education degrees.
Why don't you read about what happened before you guess about it?
In support of "opposite marriages" everywhere, don't ever let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned opinion! And when your opinion doesn't jive with facts, just say, "well that's how I was raised" and you too can be Ms. California!
I have lots of friends in the DC area in the same industry as me (Defense Contracting) with the same jobs, making the same money. The difference is I live in Austin, commute 8 miles one way in about 15 minutes, and can actually afford to buy a 3,000 sq. foot house. I have lots of job openings for my friends in the DC area, but everybody there gets caught in the culture and thinks they are so goddamned special, they'll never leave that crap hole.
No love for the epic narration from the Myth series? At a minimum, those games had the best use of narration in tutorial scenes ever, and the maps and narrations gave Myth games a Lord of the Rings feel, years before the movies.
Mod UP!!! The genius of "City 17" is that it is a familiar theme throughout literary history, so the player almost knew what to expect. And just because there was no narration or cut scenes, the level building was done in such a way that you had to hit all the "story development stops, like meeting up with Barney. In short, HL2 is very much a story telling game.
Well, generally speaking, for linear games with cut-scenes, not only do you only watch the cut scenes once, you usually only play the game to the end once as well.
I totally disagree. Warcraft II had great cut scenes (that you could skip), that lead to total immersion in the Warcraft world. Without those, there would have never been a World of Warcraft. I wish WoW would have cut scenes interspersed through the game, if not just for nostalgia. I feel much more disconnected from the WoW environment than I ever did in Blizzards other games, because you only learn about the world what you discover on quests. Given most buildings and quests are kind of repetitive in WoW, there's no back story to make them more interesting. Instead, you get a million little mini-story lines on some of the quest chains, that are easily forgotten shortly after you complete the chain.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. The attitude of the person has to be kept separate from the crime commited.
It "has to"? Are you certain? Did you write those laws, or are you merely providing your opinion? Well, obviously you either have no understanding of the pragmatics of law, or you choose not to agree with the way laws are carried out. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it less true.
Pretty much every criminal trial encounters the word "remorse" at one point or another, which shows that courts do take attitudes into consideration.
Uh, since he said "behaviour", I'm just going to guess that he's decidedly NOT American, and your rant against him now looks very sophomoric. So speaking of "ignorant assumptions"...
Seems that only works with windows file systems. Still, I worked in cryptography for many years, and the NSA has got some serious nerds...you can't sanitize everything!
How am I stereotyping MY FRIENDS!?? Do you know my friends? Since you don't, how can you say I'm stereotyping them? Most of my friends and coworkers in the Army watched Fox news and Fox news only. I don't have stats for you, but anyone who has spent a day in the military knows the only news channel that plays in every break room everywhere is Fox news. That's not a stereotype, that's a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
My baby is three months old and I've been using a baby monitor since day 1. And here I thought it was just Time Warner's usually crappy service...on second thought, it is just Time Warner's usual crappy service.
487 for Chemists, 486 for Secondary Education. I'm not sure that qualifies as significant. I'll say it again, the field of education is far broader than most people give it credit for. Please don't equate my MAEd in Curriculum to a 4 year + elementary school teacher education program. Not to disparage 3rd grade teachers everywhere, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to ace the SAT or GRE to be a good manager of 9 year olds' daily routines.
Additionally, the research done in education is notorious for its lack of rigor, especially it's reluctance to use control groups.
That's just your methodological or paradigmatic bias. Education is better suited towards qualitative research methods. Control groups are not a staple of qualitative research, and dismissing research because it doesn't use placebos and petrie dishes is shallow. I would say education research that depends heavily on quantitative methods would be just as silly as chemistry research that used critical ethnography. No one research method is the best--a few are better suited for the topic, however.
Did you miss the part where I said, "or equivalent"? That is the huge catch-all that HR throws in there so they can cherry pick a lesser qualified candidate over more qualified ones. It's also the way family members and golfing buddies get jobs that they aren't qualified for.
People like me? No, people like HR. I don't get it either, but that doesn't make it any less true. If a company doesn't deems 4 years of Android experience a must for that position, then why would they go through the trouble of writing it?
I wish I were so eloquent, in such few words.
Well you got one thing right and one thing very wrong. First, most companies do pay more for a masters over a bachelors, even if both candidates have zero experience. That's the magic of HR metrics. When you get into contracting-land, companies have to have a specific percentage of PhDs, masters, and 4-year college grads to be competitive. If you can't win a contract, there's no point in having a bunch of highly experienced (but uneducated) techs.
You are VERY right about getting a masters while you still can manage. For most people, this is when you are young and dumb. Most of us move beyond living in a one bedroom apartment with five of our friends and driving a 10 year old beater car because that saves money for the case of Natural Light. Get your masters while you are young and poor! As soon as you start working, you'll rarely find time. You'll get married, you'll get a mortgage, you'll buy two cars, you'll have a couple kids. Then one day when you are 35, you'll realize "had I just stayed in school for two more years when I was 23, I could have been DONE with school forever".
I found my masters to be NOTHING like my bachelors. The masters degree plan focused on a problem statement in the first class, followed by 18 months of classes and personal research that focused on the problem statement, culminating with published research. Undergrad was just a bunch of garbage liberal arts classes that were completely unrelated to anything other than being in college.
But if I prove I can "DO", and I add a post-graduate degree to my arsenal, my boss better pay me more or I'll take my skills somewhere else. If I can't renegotiate my salary with a degree, then I'll go to another company offering a higher position that is looking for the higher degree. If this sounds like I might have just gone through this exact scenario, you'd be right. And for the record, I still work for my old company, and I got a raise. Seems the value of a degree is actually a little higher than many of you 9-to-5ers want to admit.
It's not going to get you more money or the ability to skip past others.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! My wife and I both have Masters degrees, and we both started at much higher pay tiers than our contemporaries. The key to "tiers" is that, while we may have the same job titles (software test engineer II, for example), our base salaries are higher than other software test engineer IIs with less education). My wife makes $15k more a year than her coworkers with Bachelors degrees, and I make $25k more than mine, both of us have been with the company less than 2 years.
So after you start at a higher pay because of your higher degree, you are also closer to the front of the line for the next promotion (assuming you aren't a complete loser at work). Most promotions require the next level of education as well (or a hell of a lot of experience), so the person who started at a higher tier AND already has the education requirements will be more likely to get promoted.
The "HR barrier" is pretty simple. If the job requirement says "Masters in Computer Science, or equivalent required", then you should probably have an MS Comp Science. I've been screening candidates lately for a low level media production position, and it's amazing how many people feel entitled to apply for a job they have no qualifications for. "Four years or more" experience means you have to have, four years (or more), otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time typing the requirement.
HR is an alternate reality. Some job posting has "requirements" that are rigid, and some other "requirements" are there just to give them enough wiggle room to pick a lesser-qualified candidate over another (as in, my cousin needs a job, so I'm going to make these requirements impossible to be met by anybody). Still, I work at a software company and when our jobs have a "Masters degree" requirement, all the experience in the world won't even get you an interview. There's a reason HR has these rules. If anyone understands them, I'd like to hear your take.
Lightweight, eh? Care to elaborate, or are you just projecting your (most likely) heavy science background and biases into your post?
I'm seriously tired of the disparaging remarks towards education degrees. Sure, a four-year degree isn't much (in any field, if you ask me), but any work in any post-graduate field is an accomplishment in my book. I don't understand rocket science, but I notice the rocket scientists I work with don't understand the art of instructional design either.
Or, you could be like me and get your Master's from a giant-turd of an online University that spends their profit on naming football stadiums. They make the claim that their classes are better, because they are facilitated (not taught, because they aren't PhDs) by working professionals in the field of education. Every course I took facilitated by a public school teacher was an absolute waste of time, as they don't know how to teach education--they know how to push the buttons of adolescents.
I for one welcome the PhD in education teaching me about education, as opposed to trying to teach me how to teach. There are lots of jobs in education (like mine, software simulation training development) that require a strong understanding of education but don't require a single ounce of teaching skill. Leave teaching teachers how to teach to those 4 year plus 1 BA in education degrees.
"Struggling" to make 200 million in two weeks? I've been working on my first million for about 22 years now.
Why don't you read about what happened before you guess about it?
In support of "opposite marriages" everywhere, don't ever let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned opinion! And when your opinion doesn't jive with facts, just say, "well that's how I was raised" and you too can be Ms. California!
I have lots of friends in the DC area in the same industry as me (Defense Contracting) with the same jobs, making the same money. The difference is I live in Austin, commute 8 miles one way in about 15 minutes, and can actually afford to buy a 3,000 sq. foot house. I have lots of job openings for my friends in the DC area, but everybody there gets caught in the culture and thinks they are so goddamned special, they'll never leave that crap hole.
No love for the epic narration from the Myth series? At a minimum, those games had the best use of narration in tutorial scenes ever, and the maps and narrations gave Myth games a Lord of the Rings feel, years before the movies.
Mod UP!!! The genius of "City 17" is that it is a familiar theme throughout literary history, so the player almost knew what to expect. And just because there was no narration or cut scenes, the level building was done in such a way that you had to hit all the "story development stops, like meeting up with Barney. In short, HL2 is very much a story telling game.
Well, generally speaking, for linear games with cut-scenes, not only do you only watch the cut scenes once, you usually only play the game to the end once as well.
I totally disagree. Warcraft II had great cut scenes (that you could skip), that lead to total immersion in the Warcraft world. Without those, there would have never been a World of Warcraft. I wish WoW would have cut scenes interspersed through the game, if not just for nostalgia. I feel much more disconnected from the WoW environment than I ever did in Blizzards other games, because you only learn about the world what you discover on quests. Given most buildings and quests are kind of repetitive in WoW, there's no back story to make them more interesting. Instead, you get a million little mini-story lines on some of the quest chains, that are easily forgotten shortly after you complete the chain.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. The attitude of the person has to be kept separate from the crime commited.
It "has to"? Are you certain? Did you write those laws, or are you merely providing your opinion? Well, obviously you either have no understanding of the pragmatics of law, or you choose not to agree with the way laws are carried out. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it less true.
Pretty much every criminal trial encounters the word "remorse" at one point or another, which shows that courts do take attitudes into consideration.
Uh, since he said "behaviour", I'm just going to guess that he's decidedly NOT American, and your rant against him now looks very sophomoric. So speaking of "ignorant assumptions"...
Seems that only works with windows file systems. Still, I worked in cryptography for many years, and the NSA has got some serious nerds...you can't sanitize everything!
How am I stereotyping MY FRIENDS!?? Do you know my friends? Since you don't, how can you say I'm stereotyping them? Most of my friends and coworkers in the Army watched Fox news and Fox news only. I don't have stats for you, but anyone who has spent a day in the military knows the only news channel that plays in every break room everywhere is Fox news. That's not a stereotype, that's a fact.